Maldonado, 2009 - Institute for Applied Psychometrics

Johnson, 202 F.3d 760, 764 (5th Cir. 2000). However, a court must view a summary
judgment motion through “the prism of the substantive evidentiary burden.”
Anderson, 477 U.S. at 254. Congress intended the AEDPA to constrict both the
nature and availability of habeas review. The Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases
in the United States District Courts, along with traditional habeas practice, also allow
for the summary dismissal of habeas claims. This Court, therefore, applies general
summary judgment standards only insofar as they do not conflict with the language
and intent of the AEDPA or other habeas law. See Smith v. Cockrell, 311 F.3d 661,
668 (5th Cir. 2002) (“[Rule 56] applies only to the extent that it does not conflict with
the habeas rules.”), overruled on other grounds by Tennard v. Dretke, 542 U.S. 274
(2004); Rule 11 of the RULES GOVERNING SECTION 2254 CASES IN THE UNITED
STATES DISTRICT COURTS (“The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, to the extent that
they are not inconsistent with any statutory provisions or these rules, may be applied
to a proceeding under these rules.”). Where the state courts have already resolved a
prisoner’s factual allegations by express or implicit findings, and the prisoner does not
prove by clear and convincing evidence that 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(1)’s presumption of
correctness should not apply, construing facts in his favor is inappropriate and
unauthorized.
Maldonado presented many of his claims in state court. The state courts issued
detailed findings of fact and explicit conclusions of law with respect to each exhausted
12